Boeing to Offer NewGen Tanker to US Air Force

[sn26567]

The Boeing Company today announced that it will offer the Boeing NewGen Tanker in the competition to supply the U.S. Air Force with a multi-mission aerial refueling aircraft that will meet all the warfighter’s mission requirements for the next several decades.



Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said the Boeing NewGen Tanker will satisfy all mandatory Air Force requirements and offer an American-made tanker that will be capable, survivable, and combat-ready at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.



“Having supplied tankers to the Air Force for the past 60 years, Boeing has drawn on its unmatched aerial-refueling experience to thoroughly review and evaluate the KC-X solicitation issued by the Air Force,” Muilenburg said. “We respect and understand the KC-X requirements, and appreciate the importance of this program for the United States and its warfighters. We intend to bid for the honor to work with our Air Force customer to replace the existing fleet of KC-135 aircraft with a new-generation, multi-role tanker in a fair and transparent acquisition process.”

Boeing studied the mission requirements closely to determine the optimal airframe size that would deliver the most capability for the lowest cost to own and operate. The result was the NewGen Tanker, a widebody, multi-mission aircraft based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial aircraft, updated with the latest and most advanced technology and capable of fulfilling the Air Force’s needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients.

The multi-mission aircraft is named NewGen because it includes several state-of-the-art systems to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future. They include:

• A digital flight deck featuring electronic displays taken directly from the most advanced commercial airliner in existence -- the Boeing 787 Dreamliner -- that show all flight attitude, navigation, engine indication and crew-alerting information on screens 75 percent larger than on a commercial Airbus A330.
  
• A new-generation fly-by-wire boom with an expanded refueling envelope and increased fuel offload rate. It will meet the Air Force requirement and simplify refueling operations to reduce workload for the aircrew and improve safety and reliability. Boeing is the only team in the KC-X competition that has invented, manufactured and delivered combat-tested aerial refueling booms.
  
• The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.

The NewGen Tanker will meet all of the Air Force’s 372 requirements -- including a production rate at whatever level the Air Force determines -- with a low-risk approach to manufacturing that relies on existing Boeing facilities in Washington state and Kansas as well as U.S. suppliers throughout the nation, with decades of experience delivering dependable military tanker and derivative aircraft.

“The NewGen Tanker will draw on the experience and talents of an integrated U.S. Tanker Team, including the best of our Boeing defense and commercial businesses and our nationwide supplier network,” said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “It’s a proven team and existing infrastructure that is ready to deliver these NewGen Tankers on Day One.”

More cost-effective to own and operate than the larger, heavier Airbus airplane, the Boeing NewGen Tanker will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel. The Boeing NewGen Tanker program also will support substantially more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe.

Boeing has been designing, building, modifying and supporting tankers for decades. Those tankers include the KC-135 that will be replaced in the KC-X competition, and the KC-10 fleet. The company also has delivered four KC-767Js to the Japan Air Self-Defense Force and is on contract to deliver four KC-767s to the Italian Air Force. Three of the four Italian tankers are in flight test, with the fourth airplane in production.

The Air Force released its final KC-X Request for Proposal on Feb. 24. Boeing will deliver its proposal by May 10, within the 75-day period set forth in the terms of the solicitation. The Air Force is expected to announce its decision later this year.

To watch Boeing’s KC-X offering announcement video and experience an interactive virtual tour of the Boeing NewGen Tanker, visit http://www.UnitedStatesTanker.com. This Web site provides the latest information regarding The Boeing Company’s offer for the KC-X tanker competition.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world’s largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $34 billion business with 68,000 employees worldwide.

News Release Issued: ST. LOUIS, March 4, 2010 1:00 PM EST

I do like to read such a company chewed texts to sift out the details when it comes to compare it with the A-330 based tanker.
Here I go:
We intend to bid for the honor to work with our Air Force customer in a fair and transparent acquisition process
So they do it for the honor, not for their profit. Right.
Fair? Is this a hidden reference to the same company that lost the bid because of bribes?

this is tricky:
A digital flight deck featuring electronic displays taken directly from the most advanced commercial airliner in existence -- the Boeing 787 Dreamliner -- that show all flight attitude, navigation, engine indication and crew-alerting information on screens 75 percent larger than on a commercial Airbus A330
But they don't say how the flight deck of the military tanker version of the A-330 would look like.
Dishonnest remark, especially because this is a feature where Airbus is very well respected for.

Boeing is the only team in the KC-X competition that has invented, manufactured and delivered combat-tested aerial refueling booms
Yeah, right, doing everything to pass by the patents of Cobham engineering- the inventor of aerial refueling and...Brittish. And the Cobham refueling systems are also combat proven, but based on another technique.
Just word games.

Now it is time to laugh:
The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.
So it means that this aircraft will carry a great lot of radar operators, machine gunnners , weapon system operators because the computers cannot handle the job. Hey, guys , wake up, what kind of silly remark is this ! All US combat aircraft have automatic defense systems because pilots are unable to react fast enough and in the right way to avoid ( rocket ) attacks. And this remark gives also the impression that during refueling an Airbus would be defenseless because its computer systems cannot handle the job.

The NewGen Tanker will meet all of the Air Force’s 372 requirements -- including a production rate at whatever level the Air Force determines -- with a low-risk approach to manufacturing that relies on existing Boeing facilities in Washington state and Kansas as well as U.S. suppliers throughout the nation
And where is the explanation about the long term strikes at Boeing?

The Boeing NewGen Tanker program also will support substantially more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe.
How much is "substantially" . And "largerly " raises here the issue that Airbus would build a special factory in the USA for these tankers.

More cost-effective to own and operate than the larger, heavier Airbus airplane, the Boeing NewGen Tanker will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel.
It is obvious that a larger airplane needs more fuel. But the comparison is not by transported fuel, just by mileage. And what would the comparison be with a larger refueler that can supply more airplanes and fly further?

EADS pulls out of tanker deal !

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/3324/Finan ... igen.dhtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8556950.stm

This has all been predicted . The main blow came by the Obama administration
Every time there is a president of the democratic party, the USA isolates itself.

So they go for Boeing.

Bad news for the USA tax payer...

[sn26567]

In my opinion, EADS has received some kind of compensation from the US Government. I cannot believe that otherwise they would have pulled out without fighting, without even submitting a bid.

EADS had won the first bid! Then Boeing complained heavily and got a complacent ear in the Obama administration. If EADS had then started a court case they would certainly have won. Hence my idea that behind the scenes they struck some deal with the Obama administration and Boeing. Wait and see: there might be a surprise in the air...

No, Boeing won the first bid, by cheating. So after the EADS complaint was regarded as justified the contract went to EADS. But the USAF restarted the bidding proces. Most of the ( hidden ) protest is about this new procedure, and the question how ligitimate this was.

It was clear from day 1 that it would be a US company that would get the contract.

They will replace now 50 year old airplanes with airplanes that are designed ...40 years ago and went in service in 1982. Great.

They added some wing tips , flat screens in the cockpit, a new fueling boom system and that is practically it.
Wonder what the inflight entertainment system will be : still 8-track and VCR ?
I wouldn't be surprised that they even order ashtrays for the seats.

I am still not sure how serious EADS was about really getting this contract.
Maybe it was just to bring down the price, pushing Boeing in a corner and overloading their manufacturing capacity with too cheap work. Despite it is a military plane, it is based on the civilian airliner. And it is there that EADS is so strong.
Maybe it gives breath to the A-350 program
For the moment the EADS shares are tumbling, but that has to do with the released figures.
Very interesting is to see that Cobham who would have supplied the refueling system for this Airbus program has rising shares. This could mean that every body knew this program was a big money loser. And now Boeing got stuck with it.

Also don't forget that the A400 got a serious financial injection by the partners. The USA has always objected these European subsidies , disregarding that they subsidise their own industry.
So, yes, a kind of a deal: we do this and you don't complain. And we don't complain about your cheating.

Unhappy bystanders: the Russians who would like to sell modernised Il-76 tanker planes , but don't have the money / break even point to make a modern bird.

Please remember that the UASF originally specified (through its needs requirement) a smaller plane and opened the specification only after vigorous pressure from Northrop/Grumman/EADS for a larger plane. The carefully documented requirements document was intended to permit a large number of tankers to be based at relatively small airfields and the A-330 is a much larger aircraft that takes up more parking area.

Yes, the A-330 is larger size does have some advantages, including larger fuel capacity and freight capability. But the need is for a larger number of tankers that can put the maximum number of refueling booms in the air. It is booms that do the refueling, not a larger tanker capacity. The USAF may need to refuel cargo and transiting planes over the North and South Atlantic, North and South Pacific, Arctic regions, training missions over the US, as well as 40-50 planes exiting combat zones – and do this all simultaneously. This requires a lot of tankers in the air at the same time and a smaller, lighter plane might be able be able to be based at more austere fields closer to the combat.

The freighter capability of any tanker is not generally used. If cargo is to be airlifted, the C-5’s and C-17’s will handle the heavier, outsized loads, and the US Civil Reserve Air Fleet will handle the rest. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet is (by law) used to carry much military cargo and troops and the fleet’s 747’s, MD-11’s, 777’s and 767’s do the job. Thus the greater capacity of the A-330 (vs. the B767) becomes a sham argument.

I don't believe that the US has ever paid for direct subsidies for civil aircraft development; local governments do however subsidize companies with tax breaks and cheap land to attract new industries or keep old ones. The Federal government does sponsor R&D that is available to all (e.g., the blended winglet used on the A-330 was invented by NASA, as was area ruling a fuselage, as was digital flight controls). Although these were developed by US companies through Federal government funding, they are available for all to use.

Europe, however, has chosen to directly subsidize the development of commercial aircraft and these subsidies save Airbus a lot of money which can translate into lower costs and puts US manufacturers at a disadvantage. Were Northrop Grumman/EADS top bid, I would certainly support assessing a penalty (on the bid) of the amount of the subsidy per airframe.

There is a lot of discussion between the USA and Europe about subsidies. The argument from Airbus is that many developments used in commercial airplanes of Boeing have been paid through military programs. Many of these subsidies are hidden or difficult to divide. ( the composite issue with the B-787 is a typical example ) At Airbus, it is much more open.

And about the size difference: if a A330 can stay longer in the air, fly further and take more fuel to refuel other planes, it is quite obvious that an A330 can service more airplanes.
It is wrong that it is the amount of booms that do the job. It is the total calculation that counts.

And about the size that a parked A330 occupies on smaller airfields : is there a study that justifies this argument in favour of the B-767 to be so decisive ? I don't have the numbers . But I would be really surprised that there are so much more airfields where a B-767 can be stationed than a A330.

And now about penalties: you would agree that an USA manufacturer of federal equipment ( Northrop Grumman !) would have to pay a penalty to that same federal state? What would the US tax payer think about that? Or the Kansas labourer? We know already the opnion of the Kansas governor. He is not happy about this saga.

By the way: how much work will Boeing subcontract to foreign suppliers as with the B-787 ?

regi said on Mar 12:

"And about the size difference: if a A330 can stay longer in the air, fly further and take more fuel to refuel other planes, it is quite obvious that an A330 can service more airplanes.
It is wrong that it is the amount of booms that do the job. It is the total calculation that counts."

Not true.

The number of booms is directly linked to the number of tankers. When I flew F100's in Vietnam, there were times (not always, but occasionally) when we'd have 20 flights (40 planes try to refuel simultaneously in different parts of the theatre. It took 20 different tankers to refuel these 40 aircraft. When you are low on fuel, you need a tanker now and some of the tankers came from small austere bases where size matters. Having a few Airbus A380 tankers (or any other jumbo aircraft) with all the fuel in the world is meaningless if it can only refuel one plane at a time in one area. The A-330 is a more expensive aircraft and the US taxpayer wants to get the most for its money that does the job. The current procurement for 179 tankers is just the first installment a lot more are needed in future years and a smaller, less expensive plane will cost less to buy and less in fuel costs.

Regi, if you’ve ever been sucking the fumes from your tanks, you'd understand this - I have been down to less than 5 minutes of fuel and had to connect with a tanker that was 20 miles from me. I only had time for one pass or I was gone - over hostile territory. This puts the pucker factor up to 9 on the 5 point scale. Listen to people who have been in such situations and learn.

Remember also, that the USAF requires refueling capability around the globe, not just in one area. This takes a lot of tankers.

To smoke jumper:
I understand your explanation and it is clear - and right.
We have seen the implementation of much smaller aircraft for aerial refueling than the A330 or B767 to provide the quantity.

But we have not touched the subject about how many planes can be refueled at the same time. With the boom it is just 1 at the time. With the under wing probe system it is 2. ( I am not sure if a third airplane can be refueled at the same time with the central probe/boom - if installed )

Btw: from hostile territory to Khorat AFB wasn't that far

Reggi:

There are advantages to both types of refueling methods (boom vs. hose). You may recall that the USAF has used both, although the boom method is prevalent. In the 1950’s, the Strategic Air Command (the long-range bomber and transport community) were dominant. They needed to transfer large quantities of fuel in as short a period to time as possible. Booms can transfer fuel at much higher rates than hoses and the boom method was specified. From the concept photos released by Boeing and Airbus, you will note that both offer underwing hose refueling.

The USAF heavy bomber/cargo community prefers the boom type of refueling (vs. the hose-type system) due to higher flow rates. One flying boom can transfer fuel at approximately 6,000 to 8,000 (advanced systems) pounds per minute, while a hose type system is limited to about 1,500 to 2,000 pounds per minute (or about 4 times more per minute).

The main advantages of the hose system are (1) it is more compact and can be rolled up for reduced aircraft length on carriers, (2) it requires less precise maneuvering by both planes to fly in close formation to take on fuel due to the “flexibility” in the hose and (3) multiple hose stations are available (under the wings) so multiple planes can be refueled simultaneously. An information report by the Congressional Research Service 4 years ago explains some of the difference (see: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf )

In Europe, refueling operations are mostly concerned with fighters, whose fuel loads are considerably less than heavy bombers and large cargo planes (although this is changing with the C-17 and A-400M procurements by European Governments). Also, European military air operations are largely confined to the continent and are not global ranging, although specific operations in selected areas, (e.g. Iraq or Afghanistan) occur. Further, Europe’s land mass is only abut 4% larger than that of the USA, contains 50 separate nations, and operations are confined. Thus, the focus is on short range and not global operations, such as trans-Pacific. A high fuel transfer rate for small amounts of fuel transfer becomes a lesser component.

Regarding forward austere bases, I was not referring to bases like Khorat AFB (which is about 600 miles or 1,000 Km from hostile territory) in Thailand with its long 10,000 foot runway. I was thinking of a very small, austere base “very close” to hostile territory and not in Thailand – I have never seen public reference to this unnamed base in the past 45 years. In several instances, KC-135’s stationed there to provide quick-reaction emergency refueling entered deeply into North Vietnam airspace to help badly damaged F-105’s. A smaller, light tanker might be more maneuverable in such situations and can certainly operate from small airfields.

Danang or Bien Hoa ?
But not Pleiku

You are not in the correct country. Your references are all in South Vietnam (Bien Hoa is about 1,000 miles from hostile territory).

This was a small, very austere base that could only park 2 KC-135's plus about 4-5 AT-28's. The runway was so short that the -135 could take off with only a minimal fuel load. The KC-135's empty weight was about 100,000 pounds and the max take-off weight for this strip was limited to about 145,000 pounds. The max take-off weight for the 135 is about 300,000 pounds, so you can guess how short the airstrip was.

This was a very forward base that put the tanker into hostile territory within 5-10 minutes of wheels-up.

I kind of doubt whether a 767 could operate from such a base at all.

I think the point here is that while there are perhaps a few more bases from which a 767 could operate while an A330 could not, neither can operate from the kind of small bases from which the KC-135 still can operate.

Earthman - this might be an interesting contest (KC-135 vs. KC-767) Let's assume:

Empty Weights (95,500 pounds vs. 181,000 pounds)
Short Load Fuel Weight (50,000 pounds for each)
TO Weight (148,500 pounds vs. 231,000 pounds)

Engine Thrust (water injection for -135) - (44,000 vs. 120,400)

KC-767 has larger more aeordynamic wing and lift devices.

Contest: Will 2.7 times the thrust with a larger better wing and the same load take off in less distance? I'll bet a dollar that it will!!

I just noticed Reggi's March 9 post which says:

"No, Boeing won the first bid, by cheating. So after the EADS complaint was regarded as justified the contract went to EADS. But the USAF restarted the bidding proces. Most of the ( hidden ) protest is about this new procedure, and the question how ligitimate this was."

Let's correct some errors here -
1. Boeing did not win the first bid. The original procurement was a sole-source to Boeing and it involved a lease, not a buy of aircraft; EADS was not at all involved. Yes, Boeing executives did engage in illegal activity which resulted in the contract. Mike Sears (then Boeing CFO) promised a job to Darleen Druyun (then USAF Procurement Chief - no bribe money exchanged hands, just a job), who awarded the contract before she left the Pentagon for Boeing. Both were subsequently sent to prison.

2. The Air Force defined and documented the requirement needs for a new tanker. This document included aircraft length, wingspan, height, weight, fuel offload, etc. The Boeing 767 did meet this requirement (actually, the AF preferred a lighter, smaller aircraft for basing considerations, but the 707 series was out of production). After NG/EADS promised to establish a plant in Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby pressured the AF to allow the larger A-330 to bid. A big debate ensued, but politics won and the larger A-330 was permitted. NG/EADS won the competition as it was given bonus points for being larger (more fuel, more freight), even though these capabilities were not needed.

3. The AF did not restart the bidding process on its own. Boeing alleged, and the independent General Accountability Office ruled, that many changes made to the procurement document and process at the last minute were not legal, according to US Federal law and official rules. The AF had to restart the competition.

4. Now we are back to square one and the AF still wants a smaller tanker, but will probably accept the larger tanker just to get a new tanker program underway.

5. There is another reason why the AF wants a smaller plane. The B-767 will (a) fit on existing air fields with 100' spacing between them, (b) fit into the same hangers, (c) use the same runways, taxiways and turning areas, etc. The A-330 will require (a) more parking area to accommodate the same number of planes at 100” spacing, (b) new larger, higher,, expensive hangers, (c) widened runways and turning radius taxiways. All this costs money at a time when budgets are stretched.

By the way, there is nothing stopping NG/EADS from offering a smaller A-330 tanker. They can remove fuselage sections and shorten the wing and reduce the plane’s size. This would require a flight test program, but it is regularly done to lengthen aircraft and it has been done (by Boeing) to shorten them. So too can EADS, if they are serious about meeting the requirement.

Here is a reference to the relative size of the tankers: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/b ... anker26.ht

well Smoke Jumper, you really got me there !
I am starting to think now about Air America operations in Laos particulary.
But with such a heavy airplanes and real USAF hardware...not at LS85, just choppers. And Sam Neua been in hands of the Pathet Lao...gues guess guess

some years ago we had here also a quizz part: guess the airplane. You just raised a new quizz: guess the airport, well, LS.

Well, you were there and we are eager to hear the story.

regi:

Many stories, but not for here.

I was a US Forest Service smokejumper in the early 1960's (google "Smokejumper) and see what we do or did (in my case). After college, I was in the USAF and flew F-100 in SE Asia. For both jobs, there are many stories which I do not care to re-live here. I knew a number of Air America personnel (who had been Smokejumpers and a number died doing their job). At 68, you can tell that I am no spring chicken, but I'm still feisty.

Going back to the USAF tanker discussion, the A-330 (or KC-45) is a good plane, but it is too large for the job outlined by the the USAF for this procurement. Now, when the KC-10 is due for replacement, it will do the job, (as will a B-777 tanker). But to replace the venerable KC-135, a smaller tanker is specified and needed according to the USAF.

Regi:

Here are a couple of references to SE Asia air operations:

Don Shepperd's book "Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail" is an excellent description of these operations (that were unknown at the time). you can "Google" the title and order it, if it is not avaialble through a library.

Air America references can be found at:
1) the Air America web site: http://www.air-america.org/
2) Story about Air America operation in Smokejumper Magazine (2 parts)
a. http://www.smokejumpers.com/smokejumper ... ions_id=33
b. http://www.smokejumpers.com/smokejumper ... ions_id=34